4 ms·

Supposing they were held in contempt, what does that mean? I’ve seen this story a couple of times now and both sources had the quote, “Nobody is going to come

by tyleo 7y ago

Supposing they were held in contempt, what does that mean? I’ve seen this story a couple of times now and both sources had the quote, “Nobody is going to come with some handcuffs and arrest them, but to be held in contempt by an entire country would not serve any platform well.” I would assume that there would be some punishment though, otherwise what power does a summons really have? Or is it just assumed that the market will punish Facebook because users won’t want to use the service of a founder who has been held in contempt of parliament?

bencollier49 7y ago
If they're anything like the UK parliament (which I would expect), they do actually have the power of arrest.
- mises 7y ago
  But not on an American. Though I guess he can't go to Canada now.
brandon272 7y ago
If nothing else it is symbolic gesture. Other countries are watching Facebook's behaviour. (It's also worth noting that they aren't merely being asked to meet with Canada, but an international committee of which a number of nations are a part, and whose combined populations are roughly half a billion people.)
Tepix 7y ago
Zuck will be limited in his travels.
dleslie 7y ago
It's really hard to say because Parliament wields extraordinary powers. It once found the Government itself in contempt, triggering an election; IIRC, the only time that's ever been done was in Canada. In the few other times contempt charges have been laid no punishment was applied, at the discretion of Parliament, or Parliament dissolved before any punishments were prescribed. What's really fun to consider is that Parliament could apply criminal charges upon Zuck, and the USA may have to arrest and extradite him.
- mises 7y ago
  I highly doubt America would ever extradite for such an issue. It is not a crime for an American citizen to refuse to appear in another nation before the assembly of another nation. Other nations may not legislate for or compel citizens of America. Most importantly, extradition requires the crime to be illegal in both nations. This is not. Contempt of Canadian parliament is not a crime on American soil, whereas something like murder is.
  - rexarex 7y ago
    I don’t think Meng from Huawei was committing a crime that was illegal in China yet the USA still had her held and extradited from Canada.
    - buckminster 7y ago
      She hasn't been extradited yet. Her defence say: > her case should be tossed anyway because: her arrest was an abuse of process; the fraud charge she is facing in the United States is for a crime that doesn't exist in Canada; and the U.S. government's extradition request represents an 'abuse of power'.
    - zerocrates 7y ago
      The relevant question would be whether the activity is a crime in Canada, not in China.
  - dleslie 7y ago
    Obstruction of Justice is a crime in both countries, and Parliament could certainly charge him with that, if it wished.
- close04 7y ago
  > Parliament could apply criminal charges upon Zuck, and the USA may have to arrest and extradite him. Consider that this is where political pressure from the US (and I'm sure all countries would do the same in such a case) comes into play to prevent such instances. Also consider the kind of diplomat present at the helm of that ship. Most countries would rather not trigger him into irreparably damaging long term relations between them. He seems to do that even when there's obviously no long term benefit for the US. So don't hold your breath for this decision to hold anything other than a symbolic meaning. But this to be honest is good enough in this case. It sends a signal to people, it sends a signal to FB, and it's plausible that the legal framework targeting such companies will be adjusted to mirror the sentiment.
salawat 7y ago
It means Facebook may find its ability to do do business in Canada made significantly more difficult. Travel through Canada for Zuckerberg may come with risk of detention and arrest. Canada can put diplomatic pressure on the United States to do something about Facebook, and few things are more indicative of a need for Corporate dissolution than a corporation beginning to make diplomatic enemies of your allies. Also, should Zuckerberg keep up this belligerence, and the share price of Facebook drop as a result, he could be held responsible under securities law. Thus is the downside of making big waves. It gets you a lot of attention, and makes everything you do that much more complicated.

by tyleo 7y ago

bencollier49 7y ago

If they're anything like the UK parliament (which I would expect), they do actually have the power of arrest.

mises 7y ago
But not on an American. Though I guess he can't go to Canada now.

brandon272 7y ago

If nothing else it is symbolic gesture. Other countries are watching Facebook's behaviour. (It's also worth noting that they aren't merely being asked to meet with Canada, but an international committee of which a number of nations are a part, and whose combined populations are roughly half a billion people.)

Tepix 7y ago

Zuck will be limited in his travels.

dleslie 7y ago

It's really hard to say because Parliament wields extraordinary powers. It once found the Government itself in contempt, triggering an election; IIRC, the only time that's ever been done was in Canada. In the few other times contempt charges have been laid no punishment was applied, at the discretion of Parliament, or Parliament dissolved before any punishments were prescribed. What's really fun to consider is that Parliament could apply criminal charges upon Zuck, and the USA may have to arrest and extradite him.

mises 7y ago
I highly doubt America would ever extradite for such an issue. It is not a crime for an American citizen to refuse to appear in another nation before the assembly of another nation. Other nations may not legislate for or compel citizens of America. Most importantly, extradition requires the crime to be illegal in both nations. This is not. Contempt of Canadian parliament is not a crime on American soil, whereas something like murder is.
- rexarex 7y ago
  I don’t think Meng from Huawei was committing a crime that was illegal in China yet the USA still had her held and extradited from Canada.
  - buckminster 7y ago
    She hasn't been extradited yet. Her defence say: > her case should be tossed anyway because: her arrest was an abuse of process; the fraud charge she is facing in the United States is for a crime that doesn't exist in Canada; and the U.S. government's extradition request represents an 'abuse of power'.
  - zerocrates 7y ago
    The relevant question would be whether the activity is a crime in Canada, not in China.
- dleslie 7y ago
  Obstruction of Justice is a crime in both countries, and Parliament could certainly charge him with that, if it wished.
close04 7y ago
> Parliament could apply criminal charges upon Zuck, and the USA may have to arrest and extradite him. Consider that this is where political pressure from the US (and I'm sure all countries would do the same in such a case) comes into play to prevent such instances. Also consider the kind of diplomat present at the helm of that ship. Most countries would rather not trigger him into irreparably damaging long term relations between them. He seems to do that even when there's obviously no long term benefit for the US. So don't hold your breath for this decision to hold anything other than a symbolic meaning. But this to be honest is good enough in this case. It sends a signal to people, it sends a signal to FB, and it's plausible that the legal framework targeting such companies will be adjusted to mirror the sentiment.

salawat 7y ago

It means Facebook may find its ability to do do business in Canada made significantly more difficult. Travel through Canada for Zuckerberg may come with risk of detention and arrest. Canada can put diplomatic pressure on the United States to do something about Facebook, and few things are more indicative of a need for Corporate dissolution than a corporation beginning to make diplomatic enemies of your allies. Also, should Zuckerberg keep up this belligerence, and the share price of Facebook drop as a result, he could be held responsible under securities law. Thus is the downside of making big waves. It gets you a lot of attention, and makes everything you do that much more complicated.